Sunday, February 03, 2008

A Roman Catholic nun who sexually abused two teenage boys in Milwaukee four decades ago admitted to a church panel that she also had molested a Chicago boy and at least three other minors, according to a court document obtained by the Tribune.

Although church officials knew in the 1990s of the allegations against Giannini, they did not contact civil authorities....

At one point, the panel asked Giannini: "What do you think that these kids thought?"

Giannini answered: "They were sowing their oats. How many teenagers would resist that opportunity?"

Mmmm yeah they wanted it. They asked for it. They wanted her:

Kobs said he often considered suicide and suffers frequent migraines and recurring nightmares of abuse. St. Patrick said he abused alcohol and drugs for years after the abuse, which destroyed his faith.

"I thought, why didn't Jesus stop this?" he said.

Both men said Giannini had abused several other boys in their school, whom they have been trying to contact. One victim committed suicide, they said, and two others have sexually assaulted women.

Justifying the abuse by saying the victims 'wanted it.' Classic pedophile. Surely she is going to be punished for this, right?........ Right???

Donald sentenced Giannini to 10 years in prison on two felony counts of indecent behavior with a child, but he stayed the sentence in favor of probation and a year of incarceration at a Milwaukee County jail facility in Franklin, Wis

The judge said he decided against sending Giannini to state prison because of her age and health problems.

Um... SO??? I thought this was kinda a universal thing that everyone, Christian and atheist could agree on. Child rapists, especially serial child rapists, should rot in jail. This woman has spent 79 years out in the sun. Playing bingo. Traveling. Hanging out with friends and family like nothing has happened. She got to live a normal, happy life... while the lives of those she abused were ruined. According to her victims, she is directly responsible for the death of one of her victims, and the rape of other women.

Oh, but she should only spend a year in a county jail. Wouldnt want that breathing carcass to die in prison. Why?

"I'm struggling to understand how it is that someone who spent their entire life providing education and friendship ... could have been so diabolical," Donald said.

Because hiding under the safe wing of religion provided her with ample opportunities and cover for indulging in her psychotic behavior. Stop giving special rights to religion.

33 comments:

...Rayar's lawyer, Ted Buselmeier, said that the archdiocese "has reviewed all of the available evidence and has concluded that the rumor [of an affair] is false. Furthermore, such defamatory statements are illegal both criminally and civilly."

But the church members claim to have proof of the affair, including a call Rayar made using a cordless phone whose signal was picked up by a nearby parishioner's baby monitor...

I don't see any special rights for religion here. Lots of scum get off for being sick and old. The legislatures need to close this loophole and go to the following standard: if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Some might think Eighth Amendment, but I don't think it is cruel for someone to serve time for a crime that they have been properly convicted and sentenced for.

barklikeadog-"I really can't imagine.....Hum, let me think....how many atheist scientists have been in the news for pedophilia?? Umm...None?"

How many scientists have the opportunity that clergy and nuns have? How many scientists have the trust given to clergy and nuns? How many scientists could have kept their jobs by being transfered to another university if they got caught in such an act?

I don't think that Catholic clergy has any more of a propensity for such act anyone else. They have individuals who will do bad things like everyone else. But when it is clear that one can get away with something, some will take advantage.

If Catholic leaders had from the beginning defrocked those guilty of things and termed them over to the police they would not have such problems today. The vast majority of believers are no so stupid to believe that no bad apple could exist in the clergy. They would not have blamed the church if they had done the right thing.

Yea, Perfectly Candide, your probably right, but I would like to think that scientists don't do it even when they have the opportunity. They have an even higher calling than clergy, in my mind. I think this because the scientists I know wouldn't and don't want to.

If all your life, you are taught to believe sex is an icky, secret thing, then you'll probably end up making it an icky, secret thing.

What I don't like about religion is that it claims the higher moral ground. As a result, its practitioners can come up with very twisted justifications for their immoral behavior. ::Oh, I know I'm sinning, but I will be forgiven because I have brought this child to God -for the greater good:: or some such nonsense. The psyches of the hyper-religious seem to often twist into something ultimately monstrous and inhuman.

Thank you Jay, that helps me with my argument. The scientists I know have thrown off that early teaching or were lucky enough to not have had it in their formative years, so would not (there's always the exceptional sicko though) think to abuse children. They have a healthier concept of sexuality. These clergy do not. They are steeped in the stupid ideas about sexuality and forgiveness. And choose to take it out on those that can’t or won’t object. Just watch the History Channel about sexuality in the bible. Now those beliefs were really “way out there”. After all, “there was no sex in Eden because there was no death.” Quoted from the Rabbi. And it was all Eves fault. They choose to believe in this fairy tale, why not buy the whole package with complementary side trips into debauchery? They’ll be forgiven, right?

My brain has just turned inside ot trying to understand this atrocity.

Really how can anyone, anyone find out about this and then keep it hidden for nearly 20 years! Like it was OK. Jay has a good point, those indoctrinated in religion have such a fundimentally backwards, twisted view of sex that it almost encourages terrible sexual crimes.

According to her victims, she is directly responsible for the death of one of her victims, and the rape of other women.

They can "feel" that way, but it's just as big a rationalization as her "they were asking for it" tripe. And, yes, I do feel sorry for the victims of the abuse and the people they, in turn, raped. And I do think the Catholic church should be sued into oblivion. And all religions dumped into the shitter, frankly.

But I don't give a pass on the conduct. You have a responsibility to not pass on abuse and get help for your issues.

There is some information missing on this case. I'm not sure how a male adolescent is raped by a woman. Did she use a broom stick or something? Force the males to perform oral sex on her? How does one FORCE a male to have an erection? Unless he is into S&M, fear generally would decrease the chances of a male getting an erection. Does this imply that some male-to-female pedophile relations involve mutual satisfaction also? Or do we not just want to talk about it? Has anyone done a survey of 13 and 14 year old males asking them if they would be injured by a relationship with an older woman? And just how often does this happen without disclosure? Has any science been done on this subject at all? If so, I would love to read the results if anyone cares to post them.

Hey Oldfart, if they're under 18, it doesn't matter whether their participation was "voluntary" or not, it is called "statutory rape." Read up on it, then go back into your cave. This woman abused her position of authority over minors, and her superiors in the Holy Roman Catholic Church covered up her crimes.

Hey, bayesian bouffart, fcd - whatever. As I said, people just don't wanna talk about it. The fact that something is defined as a crime does not make it a crime. You probably believe witchcraft is still a crime because someone defined it long ago as a crime. Drinking alchohol was a crime for awhile. PROVE your case with facts. SHOW the damage adolescent sex with adults causes. Otherwise, crawl back into your own dungeon. I prefer the light of day in all matters.

Oldfart, I suspect she must have stimulated them physically. Once puberty starts, boys are really easy to stimulate to erection. Then she probably got down to, um, business.

I imagine when this was happening, the kids were contradiction that "This is wrong, they've told me not to do this kind of thing" etc. while it's being done to them by an authority figure. Plus sex is a pretty intimidating thing for young boys, so there's going to be some deep emotional stuff going on for a lot of them.

My first reaction is to think I'd have inwardly shouted "Sweeet!" and been congratulating myself on getting lucky with the teacher (nun). But, I gather this isn't what kids really feel when they're thrust (excuse me) into a situation like this.

Oldfart, if you're interested, or don't believe me, I can run down references... but I have read a couple of reports talking about the effects of this type of child abuse on male and female children.

As some have pointed out, there are ways to "convince" a male teenager that it's a good idea at the time, even though he's harboring conflicting thoughts. This is what causes the emotional damage. Besides, rape is typically defined as a violent crime, not a sexual one, for these purposes. Even if the boy didn't "get it up" it may still count as rape.

As far as lasting damage. One of the studies talked about how males are particularly damaged long term because society doesn't treat them like victims, so they don't go through the treatment cycle that female victims will. People tend to think (like you and the nun) that the kids enjoyed it or that they were somehow willing participants. Other studies have shown that victims of rape at a young age are much more likely to commit these crimes than the rest of the population. Although I still feel that people need to answer for their own crimes, I still think that the pedophile of the child deserves some blame for "what they created."

Leon - thank you for the reasonabe response. That seems to make sense to me.

Eric - I have only heard of one report and that one compared the differing effects of violence and sexual abuse on children. Those who suffered violence alone or violence plus violent sexual abuse had many more episodes of depression and suicidal tendencies than those who were sexually abused without violence whose emotional state much more closely approximated the normal.

However, I cannot quote you that study or link to it because it is lost in the fog of the past somewhere. So, if you have any studies at all, I would be glad to read them (if they are freely available since I am poor....)

There is no absolute Crime. The nature of what is criminal changes with the politics of the time. A 17 year old boy is given 10 years in jail for having oral sex with a 15 year old girl. Identify the crime. A 13 year old boy is charged with raping an 11 year old girl who consented to give him oral sex......even tho the Judge in the case stated that a child cannot consent to sex. Our sex laws are hypocritical and inconsistent and plagued by religious and political expediency.

Buffoon - you contribute nothing to this conversation. Go back to your basement.Ask your mother for another PB&J sammich.

Oldfart said The fact that something is defined as a crime does not make it a crime.

Er, yes it does. That's what "defined" means. You might not agree, and there might be all sorts of problems with the laws governing sexual activity, but the correct action is to try to change the law, not to act as if the law did not exist.

Also, even if it weren't a crime for adults to have sex with children or adolescents, it would still be wrong, particularly for someone in a position of power to exploit that power for their own gratification.

No one is suggesting that you behave as if a "crime" you do not agree with doesn't exist. Cops, Prosecuting Attorneys and Judges don't much care what I think is a crime. However, thanks to free speech, I am able to point out that certain things declared a "crime" may not be crimes. First, of course, you need a strict definition of what a crime is. If you say a crime is anything that legislators say is a crime, then our discussion is ended. If you think the term "crime" applies to something that actually exists outside of legislation, then we can discuss what are crimes and what are not crimes. In a sense, I may be confusing the moral nature of acts with the legal nature of acts.

From my perspective, it is a crime to put people in jail in one generation for behavior that was acceptable in another generation. Or to put people in jail for 20 years for a crime that previously got you 5 years. So, when you put people in jail for something (a form of legal slavery) you'd better be very sure that they have done something that actually deserved that punishment if you can even determine that. 20 years is a hell of a chunk out of someone's one and only life.

As for adults having sex with adolescents, yes - normally this is a bad idea I would think. I just want proof of what I (and most of us) believe and I would like some scientific evidence that supports the theory that a 14 year-old having consensual sex with a 19 year-old is harmful for the 14 year old beyond the possibility of biological harm which is with us at all ages. And that people who wish sex offenders were put away for life or 70 years, had some reason for thinking that was a good idea.

No one is suggesting that you behave as if a "crime" you do not agree with doesn't exist.

Maybe not, but this is what the Nun appears to have done.

..a crime is anything that legislators say is a crime...

Rightly or wrongly, this is how our society defines crime; we elect legislators to do exactly this - define (and re-define, and amend) actions which are considered criminal and specify punishments. That doesn't mean that all legal actions are morally acceptable, but it most certainly does mean that criminal actions are not (generally) acceptable.

...it is a crime to put people in jail in one generation for behavior that was acceptable in another generation...

No, things change between generations. For example, it is no longer acceptable (in the UK) for people to drink and drive, although it was normal only 40 years ago. Today's punishments are far more severe and the arguments that might have successfully defended a drunk-driver in 1960 are no longer accepted.

20 years is indeed a long time to be imprisoned and I agree that it is right for these sentences to be handed-down only when there is considerable certainty of guilt. The impossibility of redress is one reason that the death sentence was removed from the statute books.

There are doubtless many reports into the effects of sex between adults and minors, but a quick Google search didn't turn anything up. The Nun, according to the quoted report, was in her thirties when the crimes were committed and her victims were teenagers. That's a bit more than the five-year difference you use in your example. She really should have known better.

OldFart, you said "The fact that something is defined as a crime does not make it a crime." I believe what you are looking for is the distinction between a crime which is malum in se (evil in itself) and a crime which is malum prohibitum (prohibited). Something like murder or forcible rape is malum in se -- morally wrong. Something like parking in a non-parking zone is malum prohibitum -- no moral implications and you wouldn't know it was even wrong unless you saw a sign telling you so.

The issue is whether statutory rape is malum in se or malum prohibitum, and that really depends on the age of the victim. If the victim is a day shy of eighteen, then the act is statutory rape but two days later it wouldn't be, and that makes it look a lot like malum prohibitum. On the other hand, if the victim is eight, there is no question that this is malum in se. If the victim is fourteen, there's more room for argument.

She asks - why didn't jesus stop this? Why did he start it? What a nut. Nice article. Pedophiles are the lowest form of life on the planet. To steal a child's innocence is the worst thing I can imagine. :( I advocate even stronger reaction. Vigilantism. It's strange, but I wrote a book completely ANTI-pedophile and you know how many publishers will consider it? Exactly none that I've reached. Nobody will touch it. There's something wrong with that as well - if we don't publicize ANTI pedophilia books and efforts just because it deals with a subject we'd rather igore - that's wrong. Pedophiles in Thailand? You bet... Thanks for a great article, Mike.